Re: [PATCH 3/9] perf, tools, stat: Move noise/running printing into printout

[Jiri Olsa]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:57:43AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 05:19:58PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 04:43:05AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > -		if (run == 0 || ena == 0) {
> > > > > -			fprintf(output, "CPU%*d%s%*s%s",
> > > > > -				csv_output ? 0 : -4,
> > > > > -				perf_evsel__cpus(counter)->map[cpu], csv_sep,
> > > > > -				csv_output ? 0 : 18,
> > > > > -				counter->supported ? CNTR_NOT_COUNTED : CNTR_NOT_SUPPORTED,
> > > > > -				csv_sep);
> > > > 
> > > > this hunk is not preserved in the new code.. I guess the output is
> > > > different for -A if counter wasn't meassure?
> > > 
> > > The code for this is common in printout() now.
> > 
> > but what will be printed for -A not counted counters?
> > not the "CPU%*d%s%*s%s" ...
> 
> 
> CPU0       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU1       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU2       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU3       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU4       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU5       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU6       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU7       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU8       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU9       <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU10      <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      
> CPU11      <not supported>      stalled-cycles-backend                                      

ah the aggr_printout provides that now.. which wasn't
the case for the removed code

thanks,
jirka